Corporate Counsel, Technology, and Data Privacy and Security 

• Investigation into allegations related to and the production of testimony and documentary evidence responsive to SEC subpoena related to investment by large institutional investor.
• Outside general counsel for cybersecurity risk scoring company. 
• Team member securing preliminary injunction in first-of-its-kind Arkansas cannabis dispensary trademark dispute after virtual hearing under pandemic-era restrictions.
• Advised industry leading data-management company on compliance with data privacy and security regulations, including requirements related to the TCPA, HIPAA, HITECH, and the Affordable Care Act. 
• Defended patent infringement action Bombardier Recreational Products and BRP U.S. Inc. v. Arctic Cat (D. Minn.) involving recreational vehicle technology. After a three week-trial, Arctic Cat prevailed when the jury invalidated the asserted patents.
• Briefed successful defense of patent invalidity jury verdict to Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.
• Formation and post-acquisition counsel to fund in energy services industry.  
• Advised university on intellectual property portfolio, including trademark protection and licensing.
• Represented technology and financial services company in protecting trade secret and proprietary information from public disclosure under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (Ark.). 

Class Action and Consumer Protection Defense and Other Litigation 

• Successful defense of Magnuson Moss Warranty Act claims brought against multiple Fortune 500 manufacturer and retailer defendants, including removal to federal against novel arguments of Class Action Fairness Act preemption (E.D. Ark.).
• Dismissal of data breach class action after successfully compelling individual claim to arbitration on motion for summary judgment (W.D. Ark.). 
• Favorable defense award against LLC member claims, including attorneys’ fees, in arbitration after week-long hearing.
• Member of team successfully defending six consumer class-action lawsuits regarding bank and credit union account fees, resulting in dismissal of all six cases, including dismissal on motion to dismiss of putative class action claims related to public bank client’s overdraft and insufficient funds fees disclosed in account agreement.
• Successful defense of energy company in competing royalty class actions and mass actions of more than 12,000 class members filed in state and federal courts, including CAFA removal, opposition to class certification, appeal of overlapping class-certification decisions, dispositive motions, and trial (E.D. Ark., Ark.).
• In federal case Smith v. SEECO, Inc. et al. (E.D. Ark.), after a two-week trial, co-counsel and firm team achieved a complete defense victory, with the jury rejecting the plaintiff’s claim for $300 million in actual and punitive damages and penalties.
• Winning favorable resolution of competing shareholder class actions and individual suits in state and federal court seeking to block merger transaction of publicly held client (E.D. Ark., Ark.).
• Defense of related securities class actions and dismissal of shareholder derivative suits against public bank client after stock price drop (Ark., E.D. Ark., S.D.N.Y.).
• Successfully defeated statewide-initiative petition challenging Arkansas Act 579 of 2019 regarding the expanded scope of the practice of optometry. After trial before a special master and extensive briefing to the court, successfully persuading the Arkansas Supreme Court to invalidate the putative referendum petition.
• Successful pre-certification defense and dismissal of putative Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action against healthcare information, services, and technology company (E.D. Ark.).
• Defense of single-plaintiff TCPA claim alleging hundreds of unauthorized, automated calls against financial services and technology company, successfully compelling arbitration and achieving nominal settlement (E.D. Ark.).

Pro Bono

• Represented Muslim inmate in religious exercise claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA against the Arkansas Department of Corrections. After a federal bench trial (E.D. Ark.), the court found the Department’s meal-plan policy violated the federal statute and constitution by burdening Mr. Muhammad’s sincere religious belief that he keeps a halal diet and consume meat daily and that the Department failed to show its policy was related to legitimate prison concerns. On appeal (8th Cir.), circuit court reversed judgment based on failing to exhaust administrative remedies.
• Obtained state court predicate orders for applications of abandoned immigrant children for special immigrant juvenile status (Ark.).